Subscribe

September 15, 2009

Man vs. Capitulation

Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins were invited by the Wall Street Journal to answer the question "Where does evolution leave God?" Dawkins answers as we would expect. Armstrong capitulates by placing religion in the category of myth - subjective meaning beyond reality and reason. This is no favor to religion, and Christianity in particular because it surrenders unnecessarily to materialism. Armstrong is saying the same thing about reality and religion as Dawkins, just in a different way.

Armstrong accepts that evolution has satisfactorily explained the origin and existence of the universe. That's interesting because Dawkins himself has admitted on numerous occasions that science has no idea how the process of evolution got started - the ultimate answer of origins. That's because science is held hostage by the presupposition of materialism, which rules out categorically any inference to a Personal explanation - despite the admitted appearance of design. Armstrong accepts that evolution explains the natural history of pain, death, and racial extinction as though these are inconsistent with the idea of a Designer. Of course, the Bible offers a perfectly reasonable explanation. But Armstrong doesn't take that explanation seriously because for her religion is myth rather than reality. And that is not Christianity.

She states that "'God' is merely a symbol," nothing literal and "beyond the reach of words." That's not what I'm talking about when I speak of God. I am referring to a real person who has made Himself known in words and invaded history to reach us.

Armstrong writes, "Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason...." That's because for her religion is not real. And this is the problem of the modern pluralistic reflex to boil all religions down to essentially the same thing. Her characterization may fit some religions, but would be wholly rejected by many and most certainly by Christianity.

Christianity's claim is that God is real, He created the world, which is now fallen, and He took the initiative to solve the problem of sin. A mythological "haven of peace" is no solace when our problems are real.

It's quite disappointing that the WSJ invited someone to speak for the God-side of the question who doesn't even believe He is real. Her view makes religion mere wishful thinking and capitulates completely to the materialist worldview, which claims alone to speak to reality and facts. Dawkins wins this exchange by default because Armstrong believes his view is the real one.

"She states that "'God' is merely a symbol," nothing literal and "beyond the reach of words."

..I hate to take it here, but gosh.

Does it strike anyone as odd that she would describe God as beyond the reach of words....?

And yet use the very things this being is beyond the reach of to tell you that he is beyond the reach of them? So is he just beyond the reach ofsome words?

>>Armstrong writes, "Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason...."

Is she suggesting, that throughout time, Religion is supposed to provide explanations that lay outside of the competence of reason? It doesnt seem possible to me that such an explanation is even possible.
How can something unreasonable on a creative level, create a universe in which logic and reason are so tightly wound up in our consciousness? And im not saying I dont get what she is implying. But this idea of 'god' being some purely experiential, beyond all other methods of knowledge, indescribable (which is a descriptive word) impersonal force makes the mistake of describing their god right out of existence.

I read those articles also and was disappointed by both of them. Even Dawkins did a poor job, his whole article almost boiled down to "Evolution did it all, and we know it. So there." I was actually expecting a stronger argument! I had a feeling going into it that the person the WSJ chose to represent the "God" side of the equation was going to be a sad case. Is it too much to ask if they could have put forward somebody who ACTUALLY BELIEVED God and Jesus Christ are REAL? I guess that would have been too much in our pluralistic "tolerant" culture.